Problems In Intermediate Models of Origins Jim Gibson Geoscience Research Institute www.grisda.org

PURPOSE To show that all models of creation over long ages have scientific problems. To show that no model of long age creation is better than the biblical view of recent six-day creation.

OUTLINE Introduction Problems in Long-age Creation Models Problems in TE/Evolutionary Creation Models Conclusions

What Is An “Intermediate Model”? Intermediate models of origins are attempts to combine divine activity and long ages, in an “extended creation.” Nature shows evidence of design. This suggests divine involvement. Science cannot study miracles. Restricting design to natural processes requires long periods of time.

Hermeneutical Models vs Origins Models Proposals to deny the literal meaning of Genesis are not models of origins, but attempts to explain away the text. They make no attempt to describe origins. Examples: Days of Blessing (“Temple Theology”) Literary Framework Hypothesis Days of Prophecy or of Revelation

Two Classes of “Intermediate” Models Direct immediate creation Two creations, separated by long ages Long-age, multiple creation models Gradual stepwise evolution “Evolutionary creation” Theistic evolution

OUTLINE Introduction Problems in Long-age Creation Models Problems in TE/Evolutionary Creation Models Conclusions

A Classification of Long-Age Creation Models Distinguished by the meaning of “days” in Genesis 1 1. Literal, sequential days of creation 2. Non-literal, sequential days or “day-ages” 3. Non-literal, non-sequential “days”.

Long-Age Creation Models Literal, Sequential Days - 1 The Active Gap Theory 1. Original perfect creation long ages ago. 2. Satan corrupted the original creation, producing the fossil record of death, etc. 3. Recent 2nd creation in six days as in Genesis.

“Active” Gap Theory. Two Corrupted Creations Genesis creation Modern Humans Birds Terrestrial animals Marine animals Corrupted by Satan First creation

Problems With the Gap Theory 1. The model has no valid biblical support. 2. The model predicts a gap in the fossil record, between the first and second creations . No such gap is found. 3. The model proposes that Satan corrupted God’s original creation, yet the results are indistinguishable from God’s recent creation.

Long-Age Creation Models Literal, Sequential Days - 2 The Multiple Gap Theory (= Intermittent Day Theory) 1. Six literal days of creation. 2. The days separated by long ages. 3. Same creation sequence as in Genesis.

Multiple Gap Theory. Many Corrupted Creations Adam and Eve created Modern Humans created Fruit trees created Birds created Dinosaurs created Land animals created Marine animals created Microbes created

Problems With the Multiple Gap Theory 1. The model has no valid Biblical support. 2. The fossil sequence conflicts with the Genesis creation sequence. (see below)

Comparison of Fossil Sequence with Genesis Sequence First marine creatures Swamp plants, insects Flying insects, land vertebrates “Mammals” Birds Fruit-bearing trees Humans Genesis Sequence (3) Land plants, Fruit-bearing trees (5) Water creatures, Flying creatures (6) Land creatures, Humans

Long-Age Creation Models Non-literal, Sequential “Days” The “Day-Age Theory” (Includes “Overlapping Day” Theory and “Relativistic Day” Theory) 1. Six successive creation periods. 2. Creation sequence as in Genesis.

Six successive ages of creation. Day-Age Theory. Six successive ages of creation. Adam and Eve created Modern Humans Age 3: Fossil fruit trees Age 5: Flying animals Age 6: Land animals Fossil insect Age 6 Fossil scorpion Age 4: Marine animals Age 3: Formation of the Earth, plants Age 2: Expansion of the universe Age 1: Light from Big Bang

Problems With the Day-Age Theory 1. The model has no valid Biblical support. 2. The fossil sequence conflicts with the Genesis creation sequence. 3. In Genesis, the Earth is present before light. The day-age theory puts Day 1 light before the planet.

The “Serial Creation” Theory Long-Age Creation Models Non-literal, Non-Sequential “Days” – (Bernard Ramm) The “Serial Creation” Theory 1. Creation sequence follows fossil sequence. 2. Gaps in the fossil record reflect separate creations. 3. Holy Spirit guides speciation between creation events. (Sometimes called “progressive creation”)

Multiple Creation Theory, “Progressive Creation” - Many Creations and Catastrophes ?Adam and Eve created Modern Humans created Major extinction - Dinosaurs destroyed Fruit trees created Major extinction Modern fauna created Major extinction - Paleozoic fauna destroyed Major extinction Major extinction Cambrian fauna destroyed Paleozoic fauna created Cambrian fauna created Microbes created

Problems with the “Serial Creation” Model 1. Inconsistent Biblical exegesis. 2. Implies serial mass destructions. 3. Scientifically, entirely conjectural, ad hoc. 4. Scientifically, is no better than saying that God supernaturally arranged the fossil sequence during the Flood.

Inconsistent Biblical Exegesis Howard Van Till 1999 (Three Views on Creation and Evolution, p 211) “[O]ld earth special creationism, by its choice to accept the scientifically derived timetable for cosmic history, is in the exceedingly awkward position of attempting to interpret some of the Genesis narrative’s pictorial elements (interpreted as episodes of special creation) as historical particulars but treating the narrative’s seven-day timetable as being figurative.”

Kenneth Miller 1999 (Finding Darwin’s God, p 128) Serial Destructions Kenneth Miller 1999 (Finding Darwin’s God, p 128) “Intelligent design [long-age creation] does a terrible disservice to God by casting Him as a magician who periodically creates and creates and then creates again throughout the geologic ages. . . . Why did this magician, in order to produce the contemporary world, find it necessary to create and destroy creatures, habitats, and ecosystems millions of times over?”

Theological Problems With All Long-age Creation Models* 1. Death before sin – lost meaning of Jesus 2. No curses – suffering, death natural 3. No 7th-day Sabbath – no six-day creation 4. Bible not reliable – creation story only myth *Except “Active gap theory,” which doesn’t work textually or scientifically

OUTLINE Introduction Problems in Long-age Creation Models Problems in TE/Evolutionary Creation Models Conclusions

A Classification of Theistic Evolution Models Distinguished by nature of divine activity 1. Through direct divine “tinkering.” 2. Undetectable: through subtle divine influence or through natural law.

Theistic Evolution Models –1 Direct Divine Action “Evolutionary Creation” 1. God acts continuously and directly to guide evolution. 2. The fossil sequence reflects God’s experimental “tinkering.” Merges with “serial creation” if the interventions are discrete events.

Evolutionary Creation Theory - Continuous Active Creation and Multiple Catastrophes Modern Humans evolved Major extinction - Dinosaurs destroyed Fruit trees evolved Major extinction Modern fauna evolved Major extinction - Paleozoic fauna destroyed Major extinction Major extinction Cambrian fauna destroyed Paleozoic fauna evolved Cambrian fauna evolved Microbes created

Problems with “Evolutionary Creation/ “Tinkering” Evolution 1. The fossil sequence does not appear to reflect a continuous process. 2. The fossil sequence does not appear to be intelligently guided. 3. Genetic diseases do not appear to be divinely directed.

Theistic Evolution Models –2 Divinely Guided Evolution God acts subtly to influence the direction of evolution. 2. God’s actions are undetectable to us and are constrained by natural law. 3. Some theorists allow God to act in the lives of believers. (Note the pantheistic tendencies.)

Theistic Evolution Theory - Continuous Naturalistic Creation and Multiple Catastrophes Modern Humans evolved Major extinction - Dinosaurs destroyed Fruit trees evolved Major extinction Modern fauna evolved Major extinction - Paleozoic fauna destroyed Major extinction Major extinction Cambrian fauna destroyed Paleozoic fauna evolved Cambrian fauna evolved Microbes created

Philosophical Problems with Theistic Evolution 1. If natural law is sufficient to explain evolution, why propose an invisible, undetectable God also? 2. If God created, why would He not continue to care for His creation? 3. Why should death occur in such a system that produces life naturally?

Scientific Problems with Theistic Evolution Nature appears to have many gaps: Origin of living cells; Origin of meiosis, sexual reproduction; Origin of development, multicellularity; Origin of mind, consciousness. The fossil record has many gaps and sudden appearances. Harmful mutations do not appear to be guided by God.

Theological Problems With All “Extended Creation” Models Death before sin – lost meaning of Jesus No Adam and Eve – gradually human 3. No “image of God” – created from animals; (unless a “soul” is implanted) 4. No Fall, no curses – suffering, death natural 5. No 7th-day Sabbath – no six-day creation 6. Bible not reliable – creation only a myth

OUTLINE Introduction Problems in Long-age Creation Models Problems in TE/Evolutionary Creation Models Summary and Conclusions

Results 1. No model of origins escapes scientific problems. 2. None of the long-age models enjoys experimental support, or Biblical support. 3. All long-age models affirm death before sin, corrupting the gospel.

Giberson and Yerxa 2002 (Species of Origins, p 196) “The various via media positions are attempting to reconcile viewpoints that are, in their simplest form contradictory. . . . These two perspectives [science and religion] can have, at best, some kind of uneasy truce. They can never be reconciled.”

God And Science The reason that models of origins have scientific problems seems be that God uses processes science cannot study. The God of Biblical Creation is sufficient to solve any problem with science. Biblical Creation is the only model consistent with Scripture and the life of Jesus.

Telling the Story of Jesus The Church’s mission is to tell the story of Jesus. Before a model of origins can be seriously considered, one must first hear the story of Jesus in the context of that model. This is sufficient reason to reject all intermediate models.

There Is More to Nature than Science Can Discover Conclusions There Is More to Nature than Science Can Discover We must affirm our faith that Scripture is more reliable than human discovery. It would be a tragic irony if we rejected the biblical model because of its scientific problems, and adopted another model that not only has scientific problems, but also a multitude of theological problems.